DOCSLIB.ORG

Magister Militum Per Armeniam – Ὁ Τῶν Ἀρμενιάκων Στρατηγός 349

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Magister Militum Per Armeniam – Ὁ Τῶν Ἀρμενιάκων Στρατηγός 349 Magister Militum per Armeniam – ὁ τῶν Ἀρμενιάκων στρατηγός 349 JOHANNES PREISER–KAPELLER / WIEN MAGISTER MILITUM PER ARMENIAM (Ο ΤΩΝ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΑΚΩΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΟΣ) Überlegungen zum armenischen Kommando im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert Es darf mittlerweile als gesicherter Stand der Forschung gelten, dass die kleinasiatischen Themen, die in der zweiten Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts in den byzantinischen Quellen auftauchen, aus den spätrömischen Militär- kommandos des Feldheeres, denen nach dem Verlust ihrer ursprünglichen Verteidigungsbezirke an die Araber neue Territorien zugewiesen wurden, hervorgingen.1 Im folgenden sollen Stationen auf diesem Weg vom magister militum zum Themenstrategen im Bezug auf das armenische Kommando im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert beleuchtet werden. Der Kommandobezirk von Römisch-Armenien war das jüngste der spät- römischen Kommandos der comitatenses im Osten. 528 ernannte Kaiser Justinian den Feldherrn Sittas zum magister militum per Armeniam et Pon- tem Polemoniacum et gentes. Seine Befehlsgewalt erstreckte sich nicht nur über die beiden seit langem bestehenden armenischen Provinzen westlich des Euphrats sowie Pontus Polemoniacus am Schwarzen Meer, sondern auch über die im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert an das Imperium gefallenen groß- armenischen Gebiete östlich des Flusses, also Armenia interior und die sogenannten Satrapien an Euphrat und Arsanias. Die autonomen armeni- schen Naχarare in diesen Gebieten hatten ihre Fürstentümer im Rahmen der Heerfolge gegenüber dem Kaiser selbst verteidigt; nun errichtete Jus- tinian eine Reihe von Festungen mit Garnisonen der regulären Feldarmee in ihren Territorien. Der magister militum per Armeniam schlug sein Haupt- quartier in Theodosiupolis (armenisch Karin, heute Erzurum) mitten im Gebiet dieser Fürsten in Armenia interior auf. Sein Heer setzte sich aus neuaufgestellten Einheiten sowie Detachements von den magistri militum praesentales, dem magister militum per Orientem, von dessen Kommandobe- 1 J. KODER, Zur Bedeutungsentwicklung des byzantinischen Terminus Thema. JÖB 40 (1990) 155–165; J. F. HALDON, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565–1204. London 1999, 73–75. Magister Militum per Armeniam – ὁ τῶν Ἀρμενιάκων στρατηγός 349 zirk das byzantinische Armenien nun getrennt wurde, und anderen Kom- mandos zusammen.2 Malalas berichtet, dass Sittas gestattet wurde, unter den einheimischen Armeniern Soldaten zu rekrutieren. Die Armenier zogen also nicht mehr unter ihren eigenen Fürsten in den Krieg, taten aber in den regulären Truppen Dienst.3 536 folgte der militärischen Eingliederung die administrative Integra- tion; Justinian unternahm eine umfassende Neuordnung der armenischen Gebiete des Imperiums und schuf vier Provinzen: Armenia prima mit dem Hauptort Iustinianupolis (heute Cimin) in Armenia interior, Armenia se- cunda mit der Hauptstadt Sebasteia, Armenia tertia mit der Metropolis Melitene und Armenia quarta im Gebiet der Satrapien mit dem Hauptort Martyrupolis. Die Macht der Naχarare ging in die Hände der Statthalter des Kaisers über.4 In den Jahren 528 bis 591 herrschte nur für 18 Jahre Frieden an der byzantinisch-persischen Grenze. Dann schien Kaiser Maurikios die langen Auseinandersetzungen mit der Einsetzung des Xosrau II. als Großkönig von Roms Gnaden im Sasanidenreich 591 zu einem für Byzanz siegreichen Ende gebracht zu haben. Als Preis für die militärische Hilfeleistung trat der Sasanide unter anderem den Großteil von Persarmenien bis nahe der Hauptstadt Dvin ab. Der Kompetenzbereich des magister militum per Ar- meniam, dessen Truppen Persarmenien besetzten, wurde auf die persarme- nischen Gebiete bis zur neuen Grenze, die vom Sevansee entlang den Flüs- 2 Codex Justinianus 1, 29, 5 (ed. P. KRÜGER, Codex Justinianus. Berlin 1892–1895); Pro- kop, De aedificiis 3, 1, 16 (ed. J. HAURY – G. WIRTH, Procopii Caesariensis, Opera omnia. Leipzig 1962–1964); N. ADONTZ, Armenia in the Period of Justinian. The political Con- ditions based on the Naχarar System. Translated with partial revisions, a bibliographi- cal note and appendices by N. G. GARSOÏAN. Lissabon 1970, 107–110; G. GREATREX, Rome and Persia at War 502–532 (ARCA, Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 37). Leeds 1998, 154; Sittas 1, PLRE III B. Zum Festungsausbau an der armenischen Grenze: E. HONIGMANN, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen. Brüssel 1953, 11–19. 3 Malalas 18, 10 (ed. I. THURN, Ioannis Malalae Chronographia [CFHB 35]. Berlin 2000); ADONTZ, Armenia 108–110; GREATREX, Rome and Persia at War 154. 4 Novella Justiniani 31, 1 (18. März 536; Corpus Iuris Civilis, III: Novellae, ed. R. SCHÖLL – W. KROLL. Berlin 1892–1895); ADONTZ, Armenia 130–139; J. KARAYANNOPOULOS, Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung. München 1959, 63–64; The Geogra- phy of Ananias of Širak (Ašχarhac‘oyc‘). The long and the short Recension. Introduc- tion, Translation and Commentary by R. H. HEWSEN. Wiesbaden 1992, 18, 22 (Map III) und 61 A (Map XIII). Justinianupolis: Prokop, De Aedificiis 3, 5, 13–15; ADONTZ, Armenia 116–117. 350 Johannes Preiser–Kapeller Magister Militum per Armeniam – ὁ τῶν Ἀρμενιάκων στρατηγός 351 sen Razdan und Azat bei Dvin über den Araxes nach Südwesten hin zum Vansee verlief, weit nach Osten ausgedehnt.5 Maurikios veränderte die justinianische Provinzordnung und gliederte auch die persarmenischen Gebiete in drei Provinzen. Wie weit der Aufbau einer geordneten (zivilen) Verwaltung im ehemals persarmenischen Bereich in den 10 Jahren byzantinischer Herrschaft tatsächlich gelang, ist fraglich. Bei der zeitlich den Ereignissen am nächsten stehenden armenischen Quel- le – Sebēos – treten nur Militärs und als ihr höchstrangiger Vertreter der magister militum per Armeniam als Repräsentanten byzantinischer Autori- tät auf. Es verwundert aber nicht, dass in Persarmenien, der ersten großen Eroberung nach den justinianischen Feldzügen in Afrika und Italien, wie in den westlichen Gebieten der militärische Befehlshaber (Narses in Italien, Solomon in Afrika) auch die zivile Macht übernahm. Die Byzantiner kon- 5 Die genaueste Schilderung der 591 zwischen Byzanz und dem Sasanidenreich verein- barten Grenze bietet Sebēos, während Theophylaktos Simokattes nur überliefert, dass Chosrau II. zustimmte, neben Dara und Martyrupolis auch auf Persarmenien zu ver- zichten. Ergänzt werden können diese Angaben durch die geographischen Beschreibun- gen des Ašχarhac‘oyc‘, dessen Territorialgliederung HEWSEN mit der byzantinischen Provinzeinteilung nach 591 verknüpft: Sebēos 76 und 84 (ed. G. V. ABGAREAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi. Erewan 1979). The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos. trans., with notes by R. W. THOMSON. Historical Commentary by J. W. HOWARD - JOHNSTON. Assistance from T. GREENWOOD. Liverpool 1999, 18–19 und 28–20 sowie Karte 3; The- ophylaktos Simokattes 4, 13, 24 (ed. C. DE BOOR – P. WIRTH, Theophylacti Simocattae Historia. Stuttgart 1972); P. GOUBERT, Byzance avant l’Islam I: Byzance et l’Orient. Paris 1951, 291–295; N. G. GARSOÏAN, L’église Arménienne et le grand schisme d’orient (CSCO 574). Louvain 1999, 264–267; Ašχarhac‘oyc‘ 5, 22 (ed. A. SOUKRY, Géographie de Moïse de Corène d’après Ptolémée. Venedig 1881). HEWSEN, Geography 63–70, 162–167 und 210–220; Narratio de rebus Armeniae § 104 (ed. G. GARITTE, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae [CSCO 132, Subsidia 4]. Louvain 1952); E. HONIGMANN, Ostgrenze 28–29. Für die Grenze südlich des Vansees und nördlich des Tigris gibt Sebēos keine Angaben. Hier kann das Werk des Georgios Kyprios aus der Zeit um 604 herangezogen werden; daraus ergibt sich, dass Martyrupolis und die Sophanene mit Teilen Ober- mesopotamiens um Amida und Dara und der 591 hinzugewonnenen Arzanene zu einer Provinz Mesopotamia superior beziehungsweise Armenia quarta zusammengeschlossen wurde, während die restlichen Satrapien Teil der nun als Armenia quarta altera be- zeichneten Provinz blieben; diese Ansicht teilt auch HEWSEN, da im Ašχarhac‘oyc‘ Np‘rkert, die Region um Martyrupolis, ebenfalls Teil der Region Ałjnik (Arzanene) ist, während die übrigen Satrapien zusammen die Region Cop‘k‘ bilden: Georgios Kyprios 905–965 (ed. H. GELZER, Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani. Leipzig 1890); H. HÜBSCHMANN, Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen. Straßburg 1904, 229–230; Ašχarhac‘oyc‘ 5, 22, 2 (Cop‘ k‘) und 3 (Ałjnik). HEWSEN, Geography 59, 154–156 und 158–160; GOU- BERT, Byzance 297–298; HONIGMANN, Ostgrenze 32–37 (mit divergierender Ansicht zum Grenzverlauf südlich des Vansees) und Karte 1. 350 Johannes Preiser–Kapeller Magister Militum per Armeniam – ὁ τῶν Ἀρμενιάκων στρατηγός 351 zentrierten sich in den folgenden Jahren in Armenien auf die Anwerbung und Rekrutierung von Truppen für den Krieg gegen die Awaren und Sla- wen auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Daneben mußte man sich mit den mächtigen Häusern des persarmenischen Adels auseinander setzen. Während einige mit den neuen Oberherren – auch bei der Aushebung von Truppen – koo- perierten, reagierten andere Fürsten mit Rebellion. Neben den Rekrutie- rungskampagnen erzwang die kaiserliche Herrschaft die Wiederherstellung der Kirchenunion, die aber zu einem Schisma innerhalb der armenischen Kirche führte.6 Die byzantinische Herrschaft war in Armenien also vermutlich nicht besonders populär, als der Sturz des Maurikios 602 dem Großkönig Xosrau II. die Gelegenheit gab, die territorialen Konzessionen an das Imperium rückgängig zu machen. Von 603 bis 607 drängten die sasanidischen Feld- herrn allmählich die Byzantiner aus den ehemalig persarmenischen Gebie- ten zurück. 607 eroberten
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Orontids of Armenia by Cyril Toumanoff
    The Orontids of Armenia by Cyril Toumanoff This study appears as part III of Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), pp. 277-354. An earlier version appeared in the journal Le Muséon 72(1959), pp. 1-36 and 73(1960), pp. 73-106. The Orontids of Armenia Bibliography, pp. 501-523 Maps appear as an attachment to the present document. This material is presented solely for non-commercial educational/research purposes. I 1. The genesis of the Armenian nation has been examined in an earlier Study.1 Its nucleus, succeeding to the role of the Yannic nucleus ot Urartu, was the 'proto-Armenian,T Hayasa-Phrygian, people-state,2 which at first oc- cupied only a small section of the former Urartian, or subsequent Armenian, territory. And it was, precisely, of the expansion of this people-state over that territory, and of its blending with the remaining Urartians and other proto- Caucasians that the Armenian nation was born. That expansion proceeded from the earliest proto-Armenian settlement in the basin of the Arsanias (East- ern Euphrates) up the Euphrates, to the valley of the upper Tigris, and espe- cially to that of the Araxes, which is the central Armenian plain.3 This expand- ing proto-Armenian nucleus formed a separate satrapy in the Iranian empire, while the rest of the inhabitants of the Armenian Plateau, both the remaining Urartians and other proto-Caucasians, were included in several other satrapies.* Between Herodotus's day and the year 401, when the Ten Thousand passed through it, the land of the proto-Armenians had become so enlarged as to form, in addition to the Satrapy of Armenia, also the trans-Euphratensian vice-Sa- trapy of West Armenia.5 This division subsisted in the Hellenistic phase, as that between Greater Armenia and Lesser Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Change in Eleventh-Century Armenia: the Evidence from Tarōn Tim Greenwood (University of St Andrews)
    Social Change in Eleventh-Century Armenia: the evidence from Tarōn Tim Greenwood (University of St Andrews) The social history of tenth and eleventh-century Armenia has attracted little in the way of sustained research or scholarly analysis. Quite why this should be so is impossible to answer with any degree of confidence, for as shall be demonstrated below, it is not for want of contemporary sources. It may perhaps be linked to the formative phase of modern Armenian historical scholarship, in the second half of the nineteenth century, and its dominant mode of romantic nationalism. The accounts of political capitulation by Armenian kings and princes and consequent annexation of their territories by a resurgent Byzantium sat very uncomfortably with the prevailing political aspirations of the time which were validated through an imagined Armenian past centred on an independent Armenian polity and a united Armenian Church under the leadership of the Catholicos. Finding members of the Armenian elite voluntarily giving up their ancestral domains in exchange for status and territories in Byzantium did not advance the campaign for Armenian self-determination. It is also possible that the descriptions of widespread devastation suffered across many districts and regions of central and western Armenia at the hands of Seljuk forces in the eleventh century became simply too raw, too close to the lived experience and collective trauma of Armenians in these same districts at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, to warrant
    [Show full text]
  • “Khosrov Forest” State Reserve
    Strasbourg, 21 November 2011 [de05e_12.doc] T-PVS/DE (2012) 5 CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS GROUP OF SPECIALISTS -EUROPEAN DIPLOMA OF PROTECTED AREAS 9-10 FEBRUARY 2012, STRASBOURG ROOM 14, PALAIS DE L’EUROPE ---ooOoo--- APPLICATION PRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF NATURE PROTECTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA “KHOSROV FOREST” STATE RESERVE Document prepared by the Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire - 2 - T-PVS/DE (2011) 5 Council of Europe European Diploma Area Information Form for candidate Sites Site Code (to be given by Council of Europe) B E 1. SITE IDENTIFICATION 1.1. SITE NAME “Khosrov Forest” State Reserve 1.2. COUNTRY Republic of Armenia 1.3. DATE CANDIDATURE 2 0 1 1 1.4. SITE INFORMATION 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 5 COMPILATION DATE Y Y Y Y M M D D 1.5. ADRESSES: Administrative Authorities National Authority Regional Authority Local Authority Name: “Environmental Project Name: Name: Implementation Unit” State Address: Address: Agency under the Ministry of Nature Protection of RA Address: 129 Armenakyan str., Yerevan, 0047 Republic of Armenia Tel.: Tel.: Fax.: Fax.: Tel.: +374 10 65 16 31 e-mail: e-mail: Fax.: +374 10 65 00 89 e-mail: [email protected] - 3 - T-PVS/DE (2011) 5 1.6. ADRESSES: Site Authorities Site Manager Site Information Centre Council of Europe Contact Name: “Khosrov Forest” State Name: “Khosrov Forest” State Name: “Environmental Project Reserve Reserve Implementation Unit” State Director Adress: : Kasyan 79 Agency -director (Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia, Republic of | Grove
    Grove Art Online Armenia, Republic of [Hayasdan; Hayq; anc. Pers. Armina] Lucy Der Manuelian, Armen Zarian, Vrej Nersessian, Nonna S. Stepanyan, Murray L. Eiland and Dickran Kouymjian https://doi.org/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.T004089 Published online: 2003 updated bibliography, 26 May 2010 Country in the southern part of the Transcaucasian region; its capital is Erevan. Present-day Armenia is bounded by Georgia to the north, Iran to the south-east, Azerbaijan to the east and Turkey to the west. From 1920 to 1991 Armenia was a Soviet Socialist Republic within the USSR, but historically its land encompassed a much greater area including parts of all present-day bordering countries (see fig.). At its greatest extent it occupied the plateau covering most of what is now central and eastern Turkey (c. 300,000 sq. km) bounded on the north by the Pontic Range and on the south by the Taurus and Kurdistan mountains. During the 11th century another Armenian state was formed to the west of Historic Armenia on the Cilician plain in south-east Asia Minor, bounded by the Taurus Mountains on the west and the Amanus (Nur) Mountains on the east. Its strategic location between East and West made Historic or Greater Armenia an important country to control, and for centuries it was a battlefield in the struggle for power between surrounding empires. Periods of domination and division have alternated with centuries of independence, during which the country was divided into one or more kingdoms. Page 1 of 47 PRINTED FROM Oxford Art Online. © Oxford University Press, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SONS of SENEK‛ERIM YOVHANNĒS, the LAST KING of VASPURAKAN, AS BYZANTINE ARISTOCRATS By
    THE SONS OF SENEK‛ERIM YOVHANNĒS, THE LAST KING OF VASPURAKAN, AS BYZANTINE ARISTOCRATS by WERNER SEIBT The last king of Vaspurakan, a region located to the south and southeast of Lake Van, was the well-known Senek‛erim Yovhannēs. Because he had joined secretly the anti-Byzantine alliance of the Georgian king Giorgi, he had to pay a heavy price. Vaspurakan became a Byzantine ducate in 1022, and the royal family had to migrate to Kappadokia, probably in the winter 1022/23. For the details it is enough to refer to my article in Handes Amso- rya many years ago.1 Senek‛erim’s sons used this name (of semitic origin) as a kind of family name. In Greek it normally appears as Senacherim/Senachereim. Senek‛erim Yovhannēs Arcruni, the king of Vaspurakan (1003-1022), was the son of Abusahl Hamazasp. After his forced emigration he lived some years in Kappadokia, where he died around 1025. We don’t know any seal of him. He was married to Xušuš, the daughter of the Armenian king Gagik I. Some years ago I published her seal (of mediocre preservation) which she used after her husband had passed away.2 It was in the Zacos collection and is now in Paris.3 Fig. 1. Seal of Chususa Zoste, the mother of David Senacherem Magistros. 1 SEIBT 1978a. 2 SEIBT 1997, 269-272; 408-409. 3 BnF 567; for the photo we thank Jean-Claude Cheynet. REArm37 (2016-2017) 119-133. doi: 10.2143/REA.37.0.3237120 120 W. SEIBT On the obverse there is a bust of the Theotokos, the hands in a kind of modest Deesis in front of the breast (“Minimalorantentypus” according to Herbert Hunger).
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com10/04/2021 08:59:36AM Via Free Access
    Chapter 12 Aristocrats, Mercenaries, Clergymen and Refugees: Deliberate and Forced Mobility of Armenians in the Early Medieval Mediterranean (6th to 11th Century a.d.) Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 1 Introduction Armenian mobility in the early Middle Ages has found some attention in the scholarly community. This is especially true for the migration of individuals and groups towards the Byzantine Empire. A considerable amount of this re- search has focused on the carriers and histories of individual aristocrats or noble families of Armenian origin. The obviously significant share of these in the Byzantine elite has even led to formulations such as Byzantium being a “Greco-Armenian Empire”.1 While, as expected, evidence for the elite stratum is relatively dense, larger scale migration of members of the lower aristocracy (“azat”, within the ranking system of Armenian nobility, see below) or non- aristocrats (“anazat”) can also be traced with regard to the overall movement of groups within the entire Byzantine sphere. In contrast to the nobility, however, the life stories and strategies of individuals of these backgrounds very rarely can be reconstructed based on our evidence. In all cases, the actual signifi- cance of an “Armenian” identity for individuals and groups identified as “Ar- menian” by contemporary sources or modern day scholarship (on the basis of 1 Charanis, “Armenians in the Byzantine Empire”, passim; Charanis, “Transfer of population”; Toumanoff, “Caucasia and Byzantium”, pp. 131–133; Ditten, Ethnische Verschiebungen, pp. 124–127, 134–135; Haldon, “Late Roman Senatorial Elite”, pp. 213–215; Whitby, “Recruitment”, pp. 87–90, 99–101, 106–110; Isaac, “Army in the Late Roman East”, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kotayk Survey Project. Preliminary Report on 2015 Fieldwork Activities
    Annali, Sezione orientale 77 (2017) 294–317 brill.com/aioo The Kotayk Survey Project. Preliminary Report on 2015 Fieldwork Activities Roberto Dan International Association of Mediterranean and Oriental Studies (ISMEO) [email protected] Artur Petrosyan Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of the Armenian Republic (IAE NAS RA) [email protected] Abstract The Kotayk Survey Project (KSP) started in the summer of 2013. This is a joint Armenian—Italian project involving the study of the upper Hrazdan river valley, located in the northern part of the Kotayk region in the Armenian Republic. This article presents the results of the third fieldwork season, which involved both excavation and survey. In particular, the text describes the excavation of the Solak 1 fortress and dis- cusses its role in the framework of Middle Iron Age/Urartian archaeology. Keywords Kotayk Survey Project – Solak 1 – Urartu – Middle Iron Age – Kotayk region – Hrazdan River The Kotayk Survey Project (KSP) started in the summer of 2013. This is a joint Armenian–Italian project involving the study of the upper Hrazdan river valley, * “Introduction”, “Archaeological excavations in Solak 1”, “Room 1”, “The corridor” and “The main gate” were written jointly by both authors; Roberto Dan wrote “Some remarks on the Solak 1 Fortress”, “The Solak 1 Fortress in the context of Urartian and post-Urartian archaeol- ogy”; Artur Petrosyan wrote “The survey”, “The rescue excavations in Meghradzor village” and “Investigations in Kaghsi
    [Show full text]
  • Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
    İSTANBUL TEKN İK ÜN İVERS İTES İ SOSYAL B İLİMLER ENST İTÜSÜ HEM Şİ N HORONLARINDA ATMA TÜRKÜLER YÜKSEK L İSANS TEZ İ Yonca SAATÇ İ Tez Danı şmanı: Prof. Adnan KOÇ ARALIK 2008 İSTANBUL TEKN İK ÜN İVERS İTES İ SOSYAL B İLİMLER ENST İTÜSÜ HEM Şİ N HORONLARINDA ATMA TÜRKÜLER YÜKSEK L İSANS TEZ İ Yonca SAATÇ İ Anabilim Dalı: Türk Müzi ği Programı: Türk Müzi ği ARALIK 2008 İSTANBUL TEKN İK ÜN İVERS İTES İ SOSYAL B İLİMLER ENST İTÜSÜ HEM Şİ N HORONLARINDA ATMA TÜRKÜLER YÜKSEK L İSANS TEZ İ Yonca SAATÇ İ (415051017) Tezin Enstitüye Verildi ği Tarih : 29 ARALIK 2008 Tezin Savunuldu ğu Tarih : 21 OCAK 2009 Tez Danı şmanı : Prof. Adnan KOÇ Di ğer Jüri Üyeleri: Yrd.Doç Dr. Mehmet Ali ÖZDEM İR (M.Ü.) San.Ö ğr.Gör. Süleyman ŞENEL ARALIK 2008 ÖNSÖZ Yapılan bu ara ştırma, Do ğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde Cimil Hem şini, Arde şen, Senoz Hem şini (Çayeli – Kaptanpa şa), Hem şin, Çamlıhem şin, Hala Hem şin, Yukarı Hem şin, Abo Hem şin (Fındıklı), bölgelerinde ya şayan Hem şinlilerin kendilerini ifade edebildikleri ve onları birle ştirici özelli ğe sahip olan “Hem şin Horonlarını ve Atma Türkülerini” kapsamaktadır. Gün geçtikçe adını daha sık duydu ğumuz Hem şinliler sahip oldukları kültürün zenginli ği ile sadece Karadeniz Bölgesinde ve Türkiye’de de ğil, gurbetçili ğin getirmi ş oldu ğu zorunlu haller de olsa Türkiye dı şında da bilinen bir topluluktur. Hopa Hem şin (Do ğu Hem şin) bölgesinin gerek horonları gerekse, türküleri bakımından ayrı bir çalı şma gerektirdi ğini belirtirken yapmı ş oldu ğum bu çalı şmanın konu ile ilgilenen ara ştırmacılara yardımcı olmasını temenni ederim.
    [Show full text]
  • The Treaty of 1639 and Its Consequences for Armenia and the Armenians
    The Treaty of 1639 and its Consequences for Armenia and the Armenians Presented by Dr. R. Ali Kavani In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ARMENIA AND ARMENIANS IN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES Armenian Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor March 18-21, 2009. Published in ‘Armenia and Armenians in International Treaties’ Armenian Review, v.52, no. 1-2 (spring-summer 2010) Introduction Writing an article about the 1639 Treaty between Iran and Turkey is simple and difficult at the same time. It is simple because one might say that this Treaty divided Armenia and some parts of Mesopotamia. Yet, it is difficult because repeating what has been said many times before, is not sufficient for writing an article. So far, research has not come up with anything else, which shows how poor the historical knowledge of this Treaty is. It needs new research. This article focuses on the long and short term consequences of the Treaty. First, it will concentrate on the geographical aspects of historic Armenia and on the historical roots of the Armenian people. Then, it will describe Armenia as part of the Safavid Empire and the context of the 1639 Treaty. Finally, it will focus on the Treaty's consequences. Geographic location of historic Armenia What is considered historic Armenia was about 238,000 km2 in size, located in the eastern part of Lesser Asia. It is said that Greater Armenia was located to the east of the Euphrates River and Lesser Armenia to its west. Greater and Lesser Armenia consisted of the present Republic of Armenia and parts of northeast Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Ararat Marz Guidebook
    ARARAT MARZ GUIDEBOOK 2014 ARARAT FACTS ARARAT Ararat is one of Armenia’s 10 provinces, whose capital is Artashat. Named after Mount Ararat, the province borders Turkey to the west and Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic to the south. Two former Armenian capitals are located in this region, Artashat and Dvin, as well as the Khor Virap monastery, significant as the place of Gregory the Illuminator’s 13-year imprisonment and for being the closest point to Mount Ararat within Armenian borders. The province consists of 97 com- munities, known as hamaynkner, of which four are considered urban and 93 rural. Spanning an area of 1995 km2 and home to a population of 311,400 people, its administrative Center is Artashat which is 29km from Yerevan. Ararat borders the following provinces: Armavir to the northwest, Kotayk to the north, Gegharkunik 1. It is rumoured that Sir Winston’s favourite tipple came out of the Ararat valley in the east and Vayots Dzor to the southeast. Ararat also has a border with the city of Yerevan in the north, between its borders with Armavir and Kotayk. Ararat’s moun- tains include the Yeranos range, Vishapasar 3157m, Geghasar 3443m, and Kotuts 2061m, Urts 2445m. The province also has a number of lakes including: Sev, Azat, Armush, and Karalich as well as the Arax, Azat, Hrazdan, Yotnakunk, Vedi, and Artashat Rivers. During the period from 331 BC to 428 AD, the Armenian Kingdom was also known as Greater Armenia (Mets Hayk) and consisted of 15 states. One of those original states was Ayrarat.
    [Show full text]
  • Hopa Hemsinlis: History, Language and Identity
    HOPA HEMSINLIS: HISTORY, LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY This thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Cultural Studies by Neşe Kaya Sabancı University August 2014 © Neşe Kaya 2014 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT HOPA HEMSINLIS: HISTORY, LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY Neşe Kaya Cultural Studies, MA, 2014 Thesis Advisor: Leyla Neyzi This thesis aims at studying with the Homşetsnak/Hemşince speaking Hopa Hemşinlis with a focus on their history, language, culture, and ethnic identity with the use of ethnographic data and oral history interviews. My analysis focuses on how Hopa Hemşinlis construct their past at the present, as well as the already existing studies on Hemşin history within a discussion of history writing in general. This study also describes the history of Hemşince focusing on the language ideologies held by Hopa Hemşinlis in addition to the processes having impact on the use of Hemşince. In this study, it is depicted that Hemşin history and language are resorted as sites for ethnic identity negotiations and discussions by researchers as well as Hopa Hemşinlis. Although there have been endeavors to attain Turkish and Armenian origins to Hopa Hemşinlis, which still continue today, Hopa Hemşinlis exhibit a strong sense of Hemşinli identity. Keywords: Hopa Hemşinlis, Hemşin history, Hemşince, language ideologies, ethnic identity. IV ÖZET HOPA HEMŞİNLİLERİ: TARİH, DİL VE KİMLİK Neşe Kaya Kültürel Çalışmalar MA, 2014 Tez Danışmanı: Leyla Neyzi Bu tez, Hemşince konuşan Hopalı Hemşinlilerin tarihini, dilini, kültürünü ve etnik kimliklerini etnografik veri ve sözlü tarih mülakatları kullanarak onlarla birlikte çalışmayı hedeflemektedir.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Tanıtım Dosyasını Indirebilirsiniz
    İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi İstanbul’da Kültürel Çeşitliliğin Sivil Toplum Aktörlerini Güçlendirme ve Kapasite Geliştirme Projesi HEMŞİNLİLER: KAMUSAL GÖRÜNÜRLÜK Hikmet Akçiçek, Neşenur Altunkaya, Şafak Şahin İstanbul, 2018 GİRİŞ 2 I. BÖLÜM: KİM, KİMLİK 3 1. NERESİDİR HEMŞİN 3 1.1. Coğrafya 3 2. KİMDİR HEMŞİNLİLER 5 2.1. Tarih 5 2.2. Hemşin Kimliğine Genel Bir Bakış 6 2.2.1. Etnik Kimlik 7 2.2.2. Hemşin Kimliği: Görünür Olma Arzusu ile Ev’ini İnşa Eden Toplum 10 II. BÖLÜM: SOSYOLOJİ, SİYASET 12 1.YOK OLUŞ ve ASİMİLASYON 12 1.1. Ulus Devlet ve Asimilasyon: Türkiye Gerçeği 12 1.2. Kentleşme ve Asimilasyon: Hemşin Örneği 13 2. KAMUSAL VAROLUŞ İÇİN DEMOKRASİ 14 III. BÖLÜM: KAMUSAL VAROLUŞ 15 1. KAMUSAL VAROLUŞ 15 2. HEMŞİNLİLER ve KAMUSAL GÖRÜNÜRLÜĞÜ 16 2.1. Sanat ve Edebiyatta Kamusal Görünürlük 17 2.1.1 Müzik 18 2.1.1.1. Tulum ve Kaval Sanatçıları 19 2.1.1.2. Hemşince Ezgiler Seslendiren Grup ve Müzisyenler 22 2.1.1.3. Türkçe Hemşin Ezgileri Seslendiren Grup ve Müzisyenler 34 2.1.2. Sinema 37 Kars Öyküleri (2010) 39 2.1.3. Yayınlar 40 2.1.3.1. Dergiler 40 2.1.3.2. Kitaplar 44 2.2. Örgütlenme 46 2.2.1. Dernekler 46 2.2.1.1. Hemşin Terakki ve Teavün Cemiyeti / Hemşin 1912 46 2.2.1.2. (Hadig) Hemşin Kültürünü Araştırma ve Yaşatma Derneği /İstanbul 2011 47 2.2.1.3. Hemşinliler Eğitim ve Kültür Derneği / İstanbul 1960 48 2.2.2 Vakıflar 50 KAYNAKÇA 51 EKLER 53 1 GİRİŞ Çalışma, Doğu Karadeniz halklarından Hemşinliler hakkında bilgi edinmek veya bu alanda daha detaylı çalışma yapmak isteyecek araştırmacılara Hemşinliler ve Hemşinlilerin kamusal alanda görünürlüğüne dair bir envanter sunma amacı taşımaktadır.1 Hemşinlilerin kamusal görünürlüğü kimi özellikleri dikkate alarak batı ve doğu Hemşin grubu için ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmiş, ülkemiz dışındaki Kuzey Hemşinlileri bu çalışmanın kapsamı dışında tutulmuştur.
    [Show full text]